Retired # 4: Jobe Watson - Now coach at Xavier College 28/11

Remove this Banner Ad

You can call Cotchin many things, but soft isn't one of them. He gets plenty of hard ball, over 10 CP a game IIRC
Mate he wont get a hard ball when his club needs him too. In fact has anyone found him after those finals?

Will Adam Voges be remembered as an Australian great when he retires with a test average of 60?

Bout the same amount of fluff in cotchins stats against similar opposition.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I still consider Jobe to be the 2012 Brownlow medallist for the reason that I don't accept the CAS's decision on a merit basis. Despite that, I've moved on and don't dwell on it. Life's too short.

However, the actual meaning of the Brownlow to me is very very low. An award voted by rubbish umpires does not an accurate best-player award make.
 
Jun 8, 2014
1,043
1,062
AFL Club
Essendon
The AFL is having it both ways. On one hand they've ratified that the Bomber players are drug enhanced and so are able to play at a higher level and to its extension kept players from other teams out of Brownlow votes.

On the other hand they coolly hand over the Brownlow to Cotchin and Mitchell as if the super human Bombers haven't thrown the season out of whack.
 
This is Jobe's thread and whilst the talk is around the Brownlow it's not about Jobe anymore.
We have a non Essendon thread where you can discuss Mitchell and Cotchin all you want
 

Halftimehero

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 26, 2012
11,951
10,901
AFL Club
Essendon
As harsh as it is and disappointing, I agree with the calls of Jobe to be taken out of the All Australian team in 2012, like the Brownlow, its a performance based award won in a season he was convicted of taking PED's, if he is stripped of one, he needs to be stripped of the other.
 
Jan 7, 2005
61,600
68,997
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
As harsh as it is and disappointing, I agree with the calls of Jobe to be taken out of the All Australian team in 2012, like the Brownlow, its a performance based award won in a season he was convicted of taking PED's, if he is stripped of one, he needs to be stripped of the other.
really? Where exactly is the "fairest" part of AA selection criteria?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

As harsh as it is and disappointing, I agree with the calls of Jobe to be taken out of the All Australian team in 2012, like the Brownlow, its a performance based award won in a season he was convicted of taking PED's, if he is stripped of one, he needs to be stripped of the other.
Where are these calls emanating from? (genuine question)
 
really? Where exactly is the "fairest" part of AA selection criteria?
What is the selection criteria exactly besides whatever currently floats the boat of the ex-footballers/media personalities that vote on it?
 

Halftimehero

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 26, 2012
11,951
10,901
AFL Club
Essendon
really? Where exactly is the "fairest" part of AA selection criteria?

What is the selection criteria full stop? I knew this would get a people's backs up but to me it makes sense, whether you me or anyone else likes it or not, and I don't by the way.
 
Kevin Bartlett was one I heard, he was on the voting panel for that year.
thanks, found the article in the addy - sad little man is bartlett, one who craves attention and relevance
 
Jan 7, 2005
61,600
68,997
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
What is the selection criteria exactly besides whatever currently floats the boat of the ex-footballers/media personalities that vote on it?
Well, none - I'd say you nailed it. The selection criteria is simple: the opinion of the decision-makers on which players should take which spots.

Oh I'm sure they get together and talk earnestly about various scenarios and statistics but there's no formal criteria outside of what I've just mentioned - to the best of my knowledge anyway.

What is the selection criteria full stop? I knew this would get a people's backs up but to me it makes sense, whether you me or anyone else likes it or not, and I don't by the way.

It's not got my back up, I am merely giving you a framework to understand why one does not equal the other. The Brownlow is an award that gives specific primacy towards a notion of "fairness". The AA is not.

I imagine your logic is based around the perceived concept that a player adjudged to have been "doping" should lose any thing they won. However it's not really as simple as that. The WADA code states the following:

For Individual Sports: An anti-doping rule violation in individual sports in connection with an in-competition test automatically leads to disqualification of the result obtained in that competition with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

However the AFL is not an individual sport. It is a team sport.

For Team Sports it's not as clear cut, or at least it wasn't under the applicable code (WADA 2009), which reads:

Disqualification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti-doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the international federation.

Note the bolded. In the most recent WADA code I believe there is now a footnote under the provision for individual sports (the first one I quoted) which reads something along the lines of "this shall also be applicable to team-based sports", however this was an addition for the 2015 WADA code and not something that existed in the year Jobe Watson won his medal and his AA spot. Additionally, the whole concept behind stripping medals is to award them to those who were beaten by an unfair advantage - which is fair enough. But I think it draws a very long bow to suggest someone missed out on that AA spot; and nor is there any tradition of with-holding AA selection for some reason or other, and awarding it to the player who is next in line of a non-existent queue.

So hence my response. It is not in the AFL Anti-Doping Code 2012 that he should lose the AA spot. Or the medal, as it happens. Which also explains the AFL's relief at Jobe's magnanimous gesture, which is what it was despite what any invective the foamers might spit. The reason Jobe gave was that the Bronwlow gives primacy to a notion of fairness, and I agree with him that it's very strong grounds for him to not deserve the medal any longer.

However it is not the case for the AA and I for one believe there is no causal link between the two, nor should there be; rather it's a misconception; and that the pound of blood extracted by the indignity of being a stripped Brownlow medal should be more than enough red meat for the masses to be sated on. Let's just let him keep the AA eh?
 
Last edited:
Mar 2, 2015
18,940
33,922
AFL Club
Hawthorn
really? Where exactly is the "fairest" part of AA selection criteria?
Watson wasn't stripped of the Brownlow Medal because of the Brownlow's "fairest" criteria. (That's just media waffle)
It was stripped under rule 17 of the AFL's anti-doping guidelines

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL Anti-Doping Code 2015 FINAL.pdf

17. Sanctions on Individuals
  1. 17.1 Disqualification of results in the event during which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation occurs
    1. (a) An Anti-Doping Rule Violation occurring during, or in connection with, an AFL Competition may, upon the decision of the AFL Commission, lead to disqualification of all of the Player's individual results obtained in that event with all Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes

According to the wording of that rule, all of Watson's 2012 awards should be forfeited, including his 2012 All-Australian guernsey.

I'm not sure why the AFL aren't being proactive about it and administering their own rules. :huh:
Do McLachlan and Fitzpatrick need a public opinion poll about everything before they make a decision?
 
Jan 7, 2005
61,600
68,997
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
I know the mods have deleted the trolls efforts, but I did actually respond and I think we're better off leaving it there as a demonstration of his ignorance, yeah?

It's up to you, but that would be my preference. Response was as follows:

oh boy, here we go. You really shouldn't talk about s**t you have no idea about. The clue is in the very link you provided. That is the 2015 AFL Anti Doping Code. You see, it's there in your link. Jobe Watson's penalties fell under the previous version of the AFL Anti Doping Code, and unfortunately for you and your big mouth, that section doesn't exist in the 2010 AFL Anti Doping Code under which any sanctions of Watson would occur. You know, retrospective penalties aren't actually a thing?

Not only that, but the fact that you bluster in here and make an assertion like that, and yet inexplicably somehow fail to provide any actual charge, or statement, or anything at all that indicates he was disqualified under the AFL Anti Doping Code outside of your own mistaken assumption as shown above.

Not only THAT, but Watson wasn't stripped of anything - he handed it back.

The funniest thing is, that all of this was explained in the post you responded to, and clearly didn't read, or skimmed at best. It was all there for you...

So I'd suggest next time you want to make a point against somehow who has put a lot of time into actually, you know, understanding this s**t, maybe you should have a think about it first eh? There's a good chap
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back